Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(f) fixing the date on which oral arguments are to be heard by the Court; and

(g) setting time limits for parties and their advocates to address oral arguments."

32. Trial having, thus, according to Mr. Mohit Kumar, already commenced when the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed by the respondent, the prayer for amendment could not be granted unless the respondent was able to establish that despite due diligence, the details sought to be incorporated by amendment could not have been pleaded at the time when the suit was filed, under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17. Inasmuch as the respondent was aware even at the time of filing of the suit that the proprietor of RPP was Amit Bansal and not Tarun Sehgal, Mr. Mohit Kumar would seek to submit that, by application of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the amendment sought had necessarily to be refused, rather than granted.

Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan, (2001) 2 SCC 4

31. In Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan17, this Court also observed that where the amendment was barred by time or not, was a disputed question of fact and, therefore, that prayer for amendment could not be rejected and in that circumstances the issue of limitation can be made an issue in the suit itself like the one made by the High Court in the case on hand.

19. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case."

The takeaway

46. It would be appropriate, as the issue arises in case after case, to distil, from the above decisions, the defining principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC (where the prayer for amendment is made prior to commencement of trial):

(i) Ordinarily, the Court is required to be liberal while dealing with a prayer for amendment. Prayers for amendment of written statements are required to be treated even more liberally than prayers for amendment of plaints.